Allen v. Allen

• Decision Date: 03 August 2022
• Docket Number: 1D21-2652
• Citation: Allen v. Allen, 346 So.3d 667 (Fla. App. 2022)
• Parties: Michael Brant ALLEN, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Jacquelyn Marie ALLEN, Former Wife, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

346 So.3d 667

Michael Brant ALLEN, Former Husband, Appellant,

v.Jacquelyn Marie ALLEN, Former Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D21-2652

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 3, 2022

Rehearing Denied September 12, 2022

Cindy L. Lasky of The Lasky Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Corrine A. Bylund of Bylund Law, PLLC, Jacksonville Beach, for Appellee.

Jay, J.

Michael Brant Allen ("Former Husband") appeals the trial court's Supplemental Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, challenging the Judgment's treatment of his pension benefits. He also contests the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen the evidence. We affirm as to both issues and write only to address Former Husband's claim that the court should have granted his motion to reopen the evidence so that he could recall a witness who previously testified at trial.

I.

The parties divorced pursuant to a Consent Judgment that was entered in January 2014. The Consent Judgment established a parenting plan for the parties’ two minor children, set child support and alimony obligations, and fixed the equitable distribution of the marital estate.

In March 2020, Jacquelyn Marie Allen ("Former Wife") filed a motion to modify child support and to compel payments. Among other issues, the motion asked the court to clarify the section of the Consent Judgment that awarded Former Wife a portion of Former Husband's pension benefits. Specifically, Former Wife asked for a determination as to her entitlement to Former Husband's pension, including cost of living adjustments, and benefits from Former Husband's participation in a deferred retirement option program. The court held a non-jury trial. At trial, the court heard testimony from three witnesses: Former Husband, Former Wife, and Chuck Hayes, who is the benefits manager for the City of Jacksonville's Police & Fire Pension Fund.

Based on the evidence presented, the court entered a Supplemental Final Judgment which specified Former Husband's pension obligations to Former Wife under the Consent Judgment. One week later, Former Husband changed counsel. His new attorney moved to reopen the evidence alleging that the Supplemental Judgment awarded Former Wife a greater share of Former Husband's pension benefits than what she was entitled. The motion argued that additional testimony from Mr. Hayes was necessary to enable the court to separate the marital and non-marital components of Former Husband's pension benefits. The court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

II.

In cases heard without a jury, Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530(a) allows the court to "open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment." See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(a) (employing the same language). When considering a party's request to reopen the evidence, a court considers several factors: "(1) its timeliness; (2) the character of evidence she seeks to introduce; (3) the effect of the evidence's admission; and (4) the reasonableness of her excuse justifying reopening." Barrett v. Barrett , 313 So. 3d 224, 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (citing Grider-Garcia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. , 73 So. 3d 847, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ). While a trial court's discretion to reopen evidence is broad, it "is not unlimited, for it may allow reopening only ‘where this can be done without injustice to the other party.’ " Silber v. Cn'R Indus. of Jacksonville, Inc. , 526 So. 2d 974, 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (quoting Buckingham v. Buckingham , 492 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ); see also Loftis v. Loftis , 208 So. 3d 824, 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (reaffirming that reopening the evidence is appropriate if it serves the best interests of justice and can be done without unfairly prejudicing the non-moving party). Thus, an appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on a rule 12.530(a) motion for an abuse of discretion. Id. ; Singer v. Singer , 302 So. 3d 955, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). A trial court abuses its discretion only when it adopts a position that no reasonable person would take. Canakaris v. Canakaris , 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) ("Discretion, in this sense, is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.") (quoting Delno v. Mkt. St. Ry. Co. , 124 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 1942) ).

Here, Former Husband was displeased with the court's interpretation of which pension benefits he owed...